If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

...Q. DID YOU TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SHEET?
A. I WOULD NEED TO CHECK MY NOTES. I DON'T REMEMBER.
(Item 89 in the blanket wrapped around Danielle's body which probably displayed her body silhouette, which was missing from the recovery scene. No Photo, No Proof!)

Q. PLEASE.
A. NOW I SPECIFICALLY NOTE HERE THAT I DID NOT TAKE A PHOTO OF ITEM 89.

Q. I'M SORRY. WHAT -- YOU SAID "HERE" AND JUST SO THE RECORD'S CLEAR, COULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME TO WHAT YOU WERE MAKING REFERENCE?
A. IT'S PAGE 59A OUT OF 125 ON MY REPORT DATED MAY 8TH, 2002.

...Q: NOW, WERE THE -- MR. WATKINS AND MR. YOUNGFLESH IN THIS OFFICE AREA AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE -- FIRST WENT UPSTAIRS TO PHOTOGRAPH EVERYTHING OR WAS THIS DURING THE PROCESSING?

A: WE PHOTOGRAPHED THE OFFICE AREA OUT OF SEQUENCE OF OUR NORMAL PROCEDURE OF GOING THROUGH THE HOUSE ROOM BY ROOM SO THAT WE COULD ALLOW THEM TO GET IN IT RATHER THAN HAVING FOR US -- TO WAIT FOR US TO GO UP AND PHOTOGRAPH IT. BUT WE PHOTOGRAPHED THE OFFICE BEFORE THEY WENT INTO IT AND THEN AGAIN WHILE THEY WERE SEARCHING AND AFTER THEY HAD SEARCHED IT.
(Cool!)

...Q: WHAT IS A FORENSIC SPECIALIST?
A: WE RESPOND TO CRIME SCENES, AND WE DOCUMENT EVIDENCE BY TAKING PICTURES, AND WE COLLECT EVIDENCE. AND WE GO TO AUTOPSIES WHERE WE TAKE PICTURES AND COLLECT EVIDENCE. WE ALSO PROCESS SUSPECTS OR VICTIMS TO PHOTOGRAPH AND COLLECT EVIDENCE.

...A: WELL, THE LENGTH OF TIME VARIES. THEY GO BY HOW MANY CRIME SCENES YOU ATTEND. YOU HAVE TO GO TO SO MANY CRIME SCENES AND DO NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPH UNDER SUPERVISION. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO GO TO SO MANY CRIME SCENES AND DO NOTHING BUT COLLECT UNDER SUPERVISION. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO GO TO SO MANY WHERE YOU GET TO DO BOTH UNDER SUPERVISION. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO BE SIGNED OFF IN ALL OF THOSE AREAS PLUS AREAS WITHIN THE LAB. WHERE YOU ARE WORKING ON EVIDENCE IN THE LAB. SO IT CAN BE A VERY LENGTHY PROCESS.

Comment

Q. Mr. Clarke asked you with regard to the hairs that were located in danielle van dam's hand. I think you told us they were herself, meaning danielle van dam's.
A. I said they were consistent with hers, yes.

Q. But there was another hair that was found, a dark medium brown coarse approximately seven centimeters in length hair, isn't that true?
A. That is true.

Q. You had the hair standards taken from mr. Westerfield to compare against, isn't that true?
A. Yes.

Q. You compared this one hair, by the way that i'm talking to you about, you wrote "was found in the debris from underneath the victim's body," is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether or not this is the same hair that we've heard testimony about from the armpit area?
A. It's a different hair.

Q: I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NEXT DAY, FEBRUARY 5TH, AND ASK IF YOU WERE REQUESTED TO SEARCH A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LOCATION.
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: WHAT WAS THAT?
A: THAT WAS A CAR.
Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE CAR.
A: IT WAS A TOYOTA 4RUNNER. IT WAS BLACK.
Q: WHAT TIME OF THE DAY DID YOU ACTUALLY -- FIRST OF ALL, DID YOU CONDUCT THIS SEARCH?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT TIME OF THE DAY APPROXIMATELY?
A: IT WAS IN THE MORNING. I CAN LOOK IN MY NOTES AND TELL YOU WHAT TIME WE ARRIVED.
Q: WELL, WAS IT SOME TIME BETWEEN 6:00 IN THE MORNING AND NOON?
A: IT WAS AROUND TENISH.

By Mr. Feldman, I believe

Q: WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR NOTES, MA'AM, DO YOU HAVE YOUR NOTEBOOK OPEN TO WHAT NOTES YOU'RE LOOKING AT?
A: THIS IS ONE OF MY NOTE PAGES.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
A: PAGE 1 OF 28.
Q: OKAY.
THEN ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY AT ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, YOU WENT TO THE AERO DRIVE LOT FOR PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE 4RUNNER, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: YOU STARTED AT APPROXIMATELY 10:30 IN THE MORNING?

A: THAT WOULD BE WHEN I STARTED MY COLLECTION, BUT THE WHOLE PROCESS STARTED BEFORE THAT. BECAUSE PHOTOGRAPHS HAPPENED FIRST.

Q: AND HOW LONG WERE YOU THERE?

A: OH, LET ME CHECK. I DIDN'T RECORD WHAT TIME I LEFT.

(Photographs happen first. I wonder if anyone took photographs of the motor home between 8:00 pm, and 11:42 pm? Let's see, we several detectives arrive at Mr. Westerfield's home, Tomsovic, LeAlacala, and Peer can handle the processing at that location.

Another team, Dorie Savage, SERGEANT DURAN, DETECTIVE HOWIE, RUBEN INZUNZA, at the motor home at High Valley, probably waiting for that search warrant, so they can start processing the motor home? But they just stand around for 3 1/2 hours? I assume they are all getting paid by the hour? I wonder if anyone else at the scene. was on a consent to search form, trained in how to use a Polaroid?

Q: DID YOU GO INTO A MOTOR HOME?
A: NO, I DID NOT.
Q: DID YOU SEE A MOTOR HOME?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU SEE HUMAN BEINGS AROUND THE MOTOR HOME?
A: NO. OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE I ARRIVED WITH.

Must have just missed Frazee & Stetson, since they went out there between 7:00 & 8:00 pm.

Questions I might have asked, Did you take photographs, or remove any evidence from the storage compartments, in those 3 1/2 hours?

Did you see anyone go into the motor home? I don't recall that being asked. I may have missed it though. I wonder if anyone may have changed over some evidence in this case, other than Dorie?

Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

Comment

(Patrick, your information is good, just not COMPLETE. Here's the real story.)

On February 4, 2002, at approximately 11:00 a.m. detectives Keene, Parga, Stetson, Morris and Sgt. Wray searched Mr. Westerfield's motor home, storage units and trailer without a warrant. During the search of the motor home, the detectives illegally seized evidence, made observations and obtained statements from Mr. Westerfield.
(Wow, 5 HOURS BEFORE the FAILED lie detector test and they KNOW WHO, WHERE, but not WHEN, HOW, or WHY. Oh yeah, Child pornography is the WHY, isn't it.
Why?
All of this BEFORE Westerfield has been INCLUDED at the CRIME SCENE by DNA TESTING. Yeah, right! That NEVER happened! They KNEW. Way TOO Early.)

On February 4, 2002, at approximately 8:00 p.m. Sgt. John Wray, Detective Cyndi Stetson, Jim Frazee and homicide team members searched and illegally processed the motor home, seized evidence and made observations without a warrant.

On February 4, 2002, at approximately midnight, detectives again searched Mr. Westerfield's home, garage and 4Runner with search dogs. The detectives again illegally seized evidence, made observations and obtained statements from Mr. Westerfield illegally and without a warrant.
(Anybody take photographs BEFORE the ILLEGAL HOME INVASIONS by SDPD? I didn't think so!!!)

Then it goes on to talk about illegally seized computer images from Feb. 5th.

Comment

"...Q: DID YOU GO INTO A MOTOR HOME?
A: NO, I DID NOT.
Q: DID YOU SEE A MOTOR HOME?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU SEE HUMAN BEINGS AROUND THE MOTOR HOME?
A: NO. OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE I ARRIVED WITH..."

(Additional information: )
Q DID YOU RECEIVE ANY EVIDENCE FROM DETECTIVES OTT OR KEYSER OUT OF THE MOTORHOME?

MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: ONE PERSON AT A TIME. ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN. I'LL LISTEN CAREFULLY.
(Up until now, I really hadn't been paying attention either! RIP!)

AND THE OBJECTION IS BEYOND THE SCOPE; AM I CORRECT? I'M GETTING THE OBJECTION BEFORE THE QUESTION. SO I CAN LISTEN.
(Yeah, but the bugs were late, and most of nature was late. SDPD appeared to be the only folks ahead of schedule. Have ya noticed that?)

MR. FELDMAN: I WONDER IF I CAN FIGURE THIS OUT.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q DID YOU RECEIVE ANY PIECES OF EVIDENCE FROM INSIDE THE MOTORHOME FROM DETECTIVES OTT OR KEYSER?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q AND DID EITHER -- WERE DETECTIVES OTT OR KEYSER INSIDE THE MOTORHOME BEFORE YOU WERE ACTUALLY INSIDE THE MOTORHOME, IF YOU KNOW?

MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK THEY WERE IN THERE BEFORE I WAS.

BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q ARE YOU GUESSING?
A I'M NOT SURE IF THEY WERE OR NOT.

(Anybody who looked at, stepped on or over the BLUE AND GREEN towels ever think to look underneath for LOST, CONCEALED or DESTROYED BLOOD? We ripped the carpet UP and OUT and found EVIDENCE that EXCLUDED Layla. Did we find the blood on the carpet on Wednesday and just not collect it until Friday or was it amazingly discovered on Friday, one day after Karen was inside the motor home doing something. I just don't recall if it had to do with gardening or not.)

Comment

"...Another team, Dorie Savage, SERGEANT DURAN, DETECTIVE HOWIE, RUBEN INZUNZA, at the motor home at High Valley, probably waiting for that search warrant, so they can start processing the motor home? But they just stand around for 3 1/2 hours? I assume they are all getting paid by the hour? I wonder if anyone else at the scene. was on a consent to search form, trained in how to use a Polaroid?..."
(So these folks were processing the van Dam pad on the 4th and then left, up to High Valley to sit outside the motor home until what? Why didn't another team head up to High Valley so there would be ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of CROSS CONTAMINATION and TRANSFER of EVIDENCE? The motor home is a horrible excuse for a crime scene and it was treat as such regardless of how many tears the storyteller extracted from the jury with his interpretation of the "lack of evidence".)

Q. I'M SORRY. YOU SAID OH, YES. DOES THAT IMPLY THAT WHEN YOU WERE DOING THE WORK AT THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE YOU WERE ALSO WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PARTICULAR DETECTIVE?
A. YES.

Q. AND WAS DETECTIVE HOWIE THE DETECTIVE WHO WAS -- I DON'T KNOW, GIVING YOU DIRECTION OR --
A. ON ONE -- ONE OF THE BASE HE WAS.

Q. WHICH DAY, PLEASE?
A. ON STARTING ON THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY.

Comment

Q. I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FIELD SERVICES UNIT LAB REPORT THAT SAYS "PHOTOGRAPH LIST." IT REFLECTS EVIDENCE TAG 850125, AND IT SPECIFICALLY INDICATES THAT I GUESS EITHER YOU OR MR. INZUNZA TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS ONE THROUGH 163 AT 12011 MOUNTAIN PASS ROAD; IS THAT CORRECT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE MR. INZUNZA'S PHOTOGRAPHS.
(But probably stayed away from the motor home and made sure there was no chance of transfer or cross contamination.)

Comment

(Patrick, your information is good, just not COMPLETE. Here's the real story.)

On February 4, 2002, at approximately 11:00 a.m. detectives Keene, Parga, Stetson, Morris and Sgt. Wray searched Mr. Westerfield's motor home, storage units and trailer without a warrant. During the search of the motor home, the detectives illegally seized evidence, made observations and obtained statements from Mr. Westerfield.
(Wow, 5 HOURS BEFORE the FAILED lie detector test and they KNOW WHO, WHERE, but not WHEN, HOW, or WHY. Oh yeah, Child pornography is the WHY, isn't it.
Why?
All of this BEFORE Westerfield has been INCLUDED at the CRIME SCENE by DNA TESTING. Yeah, right! That NEVER happened! They KNEW. Way TOO Early.)

On February 4, 2002, at approximately 8:00 p.m. Sgt. John Wray, Detective Cyndi Stetson, Jim Frazee and homicide team members searched and illegally processed the motor home, seized evidence and made observations without a warrant.

On February 4, 2002, at approximately midnight, detectives again searched Mr. Westerfield's home, garage and 4Runner with search dogs. The detectives again illegally seized evidence, made observations and obtained statements from Mr. Westerfield illegally and without a warrant.
(Anybody take photographs BEFORE the ILLEGAL HOME INVASIONS by SDPD? I didn't think so!!!)

Then it goes on to talk about illegally seized computer images from Feb. 5th.

Thanks Greg. This is helpful. Explains a lot!

Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

On February 4, 2002, at approximately 11:00 a.m. detectives Keene, Parga, Stetson, Morris and Sgt. Wray searched Mr. Westerfield's motor home, storage units and trailer without a warrant. During the search of the motor home, the detectives illegally seized evidence, made observations and obtained statements from Mr. Westerfield.

On February 4, 2002, at approximately 8:00 p.m. Sgt. John Wray, Detective Cyndi Stetson, Jim Frazee and homicide team members searched and illegally processed the motor home, seized evidence and made observations without a warrant.

(I'm not one of them high paid appeals dudes, actually I ain't high paid at nuthun, but then again I have no life and do nuthin.
Back on topic, sounds as if the cops were in the motor home early (BEFORE THE WARRANT WAS ISSUED) TWICE and the evidence from the motor home should be examined a bit more thoroughly.)

Comment

Hi Patrick, Hi DTTJ
Been a while- good to see ya typing. Got a notice that the appellate process is still in the pre- appeal stages. I laud your efforts here. 'course I disagree with you- but hey......
office moved
Full professor She now!
sending all good thoughts
I am still watching for any developments.
S

Comment

Q: DID YOU UTILIZE A HAIRBRUSH STANDARD THAT'S BEEN REFERRED TO AS ITEM 63 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING OR EXAMINING THE HAIRS?
A: YES, I DID.

Q: THAT WAS A HAIRBRUSH STANDARD THAT WAS WHAT, SENT TO THE F. B. I.?
A: SOME OF THE HAIRS FROM THE HAIRBRUSH WERE SENT TO THE F. B. I.

Q: WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE F. B. I. HAD INDICATED THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THE STANDARDS THEY RECEIVED WERE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES?
A: YES.

...Q: SO THESE WERE KNOWN HAIRS BOTH IN ITEMS NUMBER 102 AND 108 THAT WERE OBTAINED AT LEAST AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OF HER AUTOPSY?
A: YES. THERE WAS A THIRD HAIR STANDARD THAT WE WERE USING, AND THAT WAS A SECONDARY STANDARD FROM A HAIRBRUSH. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS ITEM NUMBER 63. AND WHAT I DID IS I EXAMINED THE HAIRBRUSH STANDARD THAT I HAD BEEN USING, COMPARED IT TO THE KNOWN STANDARDS AND SAW THAT THEY WERE SIMILAR. AND THE HAIRBRUSH STANDARD WAS USED IN SOME OF MY COMPARISONS.
(MORE TAINTED EVIDENCE!)

Q: SO YOU HAD BASICALLY THREE DIFFERENT SOURCES OF KNOWN STANDARDS?
A: YES.

Q: AS A RESULT OF YOUR COMPARISON, AND LET'S START WITH ITEM NUMBER 103, THE HAIR FROM THE VICTIM'S RIGHT HAND, WHAT CONCLUSIONS DID YOU REACH AFTER COMPARING THOSE HAIRS TO KNOWN HAIRS FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A: THE HAIRS THAT WERE FOUND TANGLED IN THE VICTIM'S RIGHT HAND WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE HAIRS TAKEN FROM THE VICTIM.
(Compared with what hair standard? The hairbrush standard?)

...Q. OIEN. AND IS KERRY A MALE OR A FEMALE?
A. A MALE.

Q. MR. OIEN DID -- I THINK YOU DESCRIBED IT KIND OF AS A SORT OF A SCREENING, IS THAT -- WAS THAT HIS JOB?
A. HE DOES BOTH THE SCREENING AND COMPARISON. IN THIS SITUATION THE SAMPLES WITH WHICH HE COULD POSSIBLY COMPARE WERE Q10 HAIRS IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM THE VICTIM'S HAIR BRUSH.

Q. BUT HE WAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS, WHICH WERE SUITABLE FOR MEANINGFUL MICROSCOPIC COMPARISON PURPOSES, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. I DON'T HAVE HIS REPORT IN FRONT OF ME.
(He has the hairs, but NOTHING of QUALITY to compare them against.)

Q. WOULD LOOKING AT IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION? IS IT PART OF YOUR CASE FILE?
A. IT IS NOT PART OF MY CASE FILE.

Q. DO YOU RECALL HIM INDICATING THAT THE LIMITED NATURE OF THE Q10 SAMPLE PRECLUDED MEANINGFUL MICROSCOPIC COMPARISON?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SHE CAN ANSWER WHETHER SHE KNEW THAT OR NOT. YOU MAY ANSWER, DOCTOR.

THE WITNESS: YES. I DID READ THAT IN HIS REPORT.

BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q. SO YOU WERE AWARE THAT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE HAIRS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO YOU WERE OF SUCH I GUESS QUALITY THAT IT PRECLUDED MEANINGFUL MICROSCOPIC COMPARISON; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT, DOCTOR?

THE WITNESS: THE QUALITY SPECIFICALLY OF THE Q10 HAIRS FROM THE HAIR BRUSH WERE PROVIDED AS A LIMITED KNOWN SAMPLE. IT WAS A QUALITY OF THOSE SAMPLES WHICH WAS INSUFFICIENT TO CONDUCT A MEANINGFUL COMPARISON.

Q. OKAY. BUT THE WORDS USED WERE "PRECLUDES A MEANINGFUL MICROSCOPIC COMPARISON." WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO PRECLUDE SOMETHING?
A. THAT HE CANNOT CONDUCT A COMPARISON USING THOSE HAIR BRUSH HAIRS AS A KNOWN STANDARD.
(But the good folks at SDPD could use the hair brush hairs for comparison.)

Comment

"A. NOW I SPECIFICALLY NOTE HERE THAT I DID NOT TAKE A PHOTO OF ITEM 89."

(Any ideas why an ALLEGED professional would DELIBERATELY IGNORE PROPER PROCEDURE in a murder investigation?

Would you challenge the integrity of a piece of evidence which was DELIBERATELY NOT DOCUMENTED?
Shouldn't the jury and Mr. Westerfield know the TRUTH about Item 89?
Will anybody be held accountable when item 89 mysteriously disappears from the property room?)

Comment

Dusek also revealed the story behind the alleged scratch marks on Westerfield's arm.
Pictures of the scratch marks were used as evidence at the preliminary hearing in March – but the jury at Westerfield's trial never heard about them.

The reason: An expert analyzed the marks after the preliminary hearing and couldn't conclusively match them to Danielle's fingers.
(Used as EVIDENCE and then EXCLUDED AFTER the prelim?

ARE you FlUCKING kidding me?

Where does one go to protest this gross injustice to DANIELLE AND DAVID?
Does anybody care about the truth?

"Woody and I are still convinced it's scratch marks," Dusek told the audience.
"What else could it be? But we didn't have proof."
(What did Westerfield claim them to be?)

A. WELL, FOR BOTH ITEMS 27 AND 29, AGAIN 27 IS LEFT FINGERNAIL SCRAPINGS, 29 IS THE POSSIBLE FLAKE -- BLOOD FLAKE OR TISSUE. FOR THOSE TWO ITEMS WE RECEIVED NO RESULTS.

Q. WHAT ABOUT THE THIRD ITEM, THE RIGHT SCRAPINGS?
A. FOR ITEM 28, WHICH WAS THE RIGHT FINGERNAIL SCRAPINGS, WE OBTAINED A PARTIAL S. T. R. PROFILE.

Q. NOW, PARTIAL S. T. R. PROFILE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A. THERE ARE 13 LOCATIONS THAT WE COMMONLY LOOK AT IN EACH SAMPLE, AND WE WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE RESULTS FROM ALL 13 LOCATIONS. SO IT BECOMES A PARTIAL PROFILE.

Q. CAN YOU USE A PARTIAL PROFILE TO MAKE COMPARISONS TO INDIVIDUALS TO SEE IF THAT PERSON COULD OR COULDN'T HAVE LEFT THAT SAMPLE?
A. YES, YOU CAN.

Q. WERE YOU ABLE TO DO THAT IN THIS CASE?
A. YES, WE WERE.

Q. WITH WHAT RESULTS?
A. ITEM 28 MATCHED THE PROFILE OF DANIELLE VAN DAM ATHE LOCATIONS WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN. AND MR. WESTERFIELD IS EXCLUDED AS THE SOURCE OF THIS ITEM.

...Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US HOW SHE OR YOU KEPT HER FINGERNAILS?
A I THINK SHE BIT THEM.

Q KEEP THEM UP A LITTLE BIT, IF YOU WOULD. KEEP THE VOICE UP, IF YOU WILL.
A SHE BIT HER NAILS.
(But yet somehow left huge scratches on Westerfield's arms? Were the scratches alleged to be from a LEFT hand or RIGHT hand? And yes, it DOES matter, just not to the idiots in the DA's office.)

Comment

Dusek also revealed the story behind the alleged scratch marks on Westerfield's arm.
Pictures of the scratch marks were used as evidence at the preliminary hearing in March – but the jury at Westerfield's trial never heard about them.

The reason: An expert analyzed the marks after the preliminary hearing and couldn't conclusively match them to Danielle's fingers.
(Used as EVIDENCE and then EXCLUDED AFTER the prelim?

ARE you FlUCKING kidding me?

...

Nice catch! Just like the underwear? "Unusual" stains in the crotch area, and a common source for DNA in "sexual assault" cases. EXCLUDED AFTER the prelim... they became a secondary DNA reference sample? Yeah right! A hair brush, toothbrush, not good enough. Get those dirty underwear with the unusual stains in the crotch area, and scoop them up with the shirt with the BLOOD on it. No problem! Just like in the book! Book of Secrets, that is!

I wonder what else they planned on using? Bugs? Oh yeah, that didn't work out so well either. And then we hear, DNA trumps bugs? Should have had a battle of the DNA experts, testify on how long you would expect someone to miss a 1 3/16" reddish-brown blood stain on the FRONT of a jacket!!!!!! Minutes? Hours? NO! DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's the Car Fax?

Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

Comment

An expert analyzed the marks after the preliminary hearing and couldn't conclusively match them to Danielle's fingers.
(Ahh, ummm, ahh, now that the game is over, I want to bet on the Chiefs. Anybody in the DA's office able to get a bet down AFTER the fact?)